1. Title, director and release year?
Darwins Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument focuses on the globalization of markets and the effects it has on people. Both negative and positive. Europeans were able to purchase an inexpensive fish. The fishing company seemed to be headed by middle easterners. The lake where the fish were harvested used to have large amounts of fish that were diverse in species. Now the only species left is the crop fish and it is not sustainable for long because the fish eats its young since they have eaten all the other fish.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Sustainability of the environment.
Sustainability of the people.
Sustainability of the economy.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The positive feedback loop spreading hiv/aids caused by the fishing industry. I found it interesting that not only is one person getting hiv/aids, but once they cannot work, they have to return home, which spreads the disease further. This all stemming from the need to work at the fishery because staying at home on the farms is not economical.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
2 million white people eat fish a day. I felt as if they were directly accusing people of Europe and wherever the product is sold. I would agree to blame them if they knew of the product and where and how it was processed, but if they don't know, they should not be blamed. The fishing company should be prevented from doing this to someones land and people, probably from a government.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Why were so many people missing a leg. Why the kids don't want to be fishermen.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Humanitarians, people in general in order to be aware of the issue. I think it will be hard to affect the fish industry unless a policy is made to prevent the ability to do so or to somehow make their product or products with their product known to customers to prevent purchase.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
They are given condoms to prevent the spread of hiv/aids but because of religion are not actually told to use them.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
More about what can be done or what they propose should be done.
Darwins Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument focuses on the globalization of markets and the effects it has on people. Both negative and positive. Europeans were able to purchase an inexpensive fish. The fishing company seemed to be headed by middle easterners. The lake where the fish were harvested used to have large amounts of fish that were diverse in species. Now the only species left is the crop fish and it is not sustainable for long because the fish eats its young since they have eaten all the other fish.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Sustainability of the environment.
Sustainability of the people.
Sustainability of the economy.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The positive feedback loop spreading hiv/aids caused by the fishing industry. I found it interesting that not only is one person getting hiv/aids, but once they cannot work, they have to return home, which spreads the disease further. This all stemming from the need to work at the fishery because staying at home on the farms is not economical.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
2 million white people eat fish a day. I felt as if they were directly accusing people of Europe and wherever the product is sold. I would agree to blame them if they knew of the product and where and how it was processed, but if they don't know, they should not be blamed. The fishing company should be prevented from doing this to someones land and people, probably from a government.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Why were so many people missing a leg. Why the kids don't want to be fishermen.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Humanitarians, people in general in order to be aware of the issue. I think it will be hard to affect the fish industry unless a policy is made to prevent the ability to do so or to somehow make their product or products with their product known to customers to prevent purchase.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
They are given condoms to prevent the spread of hiv/aids but because of religion are not actually told to use them.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
More about what can be done or what they propose should be done.